|
|
| Civil Forfeiture's Excesses |
|
Posted by FoM on April 11, 2002 at 11:15:12 PT Editorial Opinion Source: Rocky Mountain News 
The ferocious opposition of law-enforcement agencies to reform of the forfeiture laws is clear evidence of how badly reform is needed. House Bill 1404, sponsored by Rep. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, would tame some of the worst abuses of this war-on-drugs strategy run wild, and we encourage legislators to approve it. But if they don't, Colorado voters should follow the leads of Oregon, Utah and elsewhere and take matters into their own hands with an initiative. Last week, after a debate that stretched to seven hours, the House Civil Justice and Judiciary Committee set the bill aside so Mitchell could tinker with the language before a vote that could come as early as today. But the core principles of the bill will remain, Mitchell said. Chief among them is indeed to make it harder for law enforcement agencies to take private property for their own benefit. Why, they'd actually have to prove first in court that the property owner was guilty of criminal behavior before imposing the forfeiture penalty. Isn't that the way the justice system is supposed to work? Verdict first, punishment afterwards? The bill would also raise the standard of proof that the property was used for criminal purposes to "clear and convincing evidence," and would reduce the financial incentive for forfeiture by diverting some of the proceeds from a forfeiture to drug treatment programs. As drafted, the bill would still allow property to be seized on suspicion, but would direct courts to return it unless the owner is convicted. And even if the owner is convicted, others with a claim on the property who are not involved in the crime (such as mortgage holders) would be paid before the agency that carried out the seizure. Mitchell said he would consider an exemption in cases where a property was consistently and repeatedly a source of problems although the owner was not directly involved in the criminal activities of his tenants. Seems to us that's about as much compromise as civil liberties can stand. Mitchell expects the committee will send the bill to the floor and we hope legislators will recognize that simple justice demands its passage. A core belief of our justice system is that the innocent must be protected, even if that sometimes means the guilty go free. Civil forfeiture without criminal conviction can't meet that fundamental test of fairness. But if by chance that argument doesn't sway legislators, they should give thought to the periols of legislating by initiative -- as voters are inclined to do when lawmakers dawdle because they hate to offend important people. Legislative debate often reveals complications and subtleties in an issue that the drafters need to take into account; that's what Mitchell has been doing this past week.With initiatives whose language is fixed, that's not possible. The legislature should act to remedy this injustice. Our view: If the legislature won't act, the voters should. The issue: Bill would restrict the taking of private property. Related Articles & Web Site: F.E.A.R. Spoils of Drug War Forfeitures Prove Too Lucrative Who Gave Your Rights Away? Drug War Redux - Reason Magazine Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #2 posted by FoM on April 12, 2002 at 19:59:45 PT |
| I thought if they caught a person in a HUD home they could take it too but maybe not. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by MDG on April 12, 2002 at 19:52:19 PT |
| If law enforcement agencies can seize property from owners if they did/didn't know about illegal drug activity, my question would be this: Why aren't law enforcement agencies seizing government-owned housing projects? [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |